Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior.
Abstract
The authors compared the Big 5 factors of personality with the facets or traits of personality that constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria. Both the broad factors and the narrow facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard, even when the number of facet predictors was limited to the number of factor predictors. Moreover, the criterion variance accounted for by the personality facets often included large portions not predicted by the personality factors. The narrow facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum prediction achieved by the broad factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more detailed approach to personality assessment, one that goes beyond the measurement of the Big 5 factors alone.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lower-level facets predicted course grades among undergraduates better than their higher-level factor measures in comparisons of Conscientiousness and Openness with need for achievement and need for understanding.
“For instance, Paunonen and Ashton [2001] compared Big Five Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience with two related facets, need for achievement and need for understanding.In each comparison, the lower-level facet predicted course grades among undergraduates better than its higher-level factor measure.”
From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Paunonen and Ashton [2001]
Measurement of complex constructs at the facet level is important for clarifying relationships between these constructs and other variables.
“Several authors have argued that measurement of complex constructs at the facet level is important for clarifying relationships between these constructs and other variables (Hough & Schneider, 1995; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996; Smith, Fischer, & Fister, 2003; Smith & McCarthy, 1995).”
From Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness (2006) · cites this paper as Paunonen & Ashton, 2001
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 23 · Cited by 1,097
- Authors
- Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- ORCID
- Ashton, Michael C.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 524-539
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2092677738
- Cited by
- 1,097
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 137 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 69
- FWCI
- 21.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Keywords
- Big Five personality traits, personality facets, behavior prediction, personality assessment, trait structure, criterion validity
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Personality, Self-Assessment, Social Behavior, Sociometric Techniques
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
